Wednesday, July 1, 2015

At 3:45 am Saturday, 16 May 2015 the Conference
Of the Parties (COPs) to the Basel (COP 12), Rotterdam (COP 7) and Stockholm (COP
7)Conventionsofficially closed in Geneva, Switzerland following
two weeks of intense negotiations and several hours after the Triple COPs, as
they are known, were scheduled to end on Friday.

I among almost 1,200 participants, composed
of government delegates and observers from 171 countries, followed the
negotiations on regulations of hazardous chemicals and waste. Many of us were
hopeful that more hazardous chemicals would be placed under the global watch of
the conventions, particularly the Stockholm
and Rotterdam Conventions that regulate the toxic
chemicals listed in their Annexes, bearing in mind that the primary objective
of the conventions is to protect human health and the environment.

However, the conventions operate largely by
consensus among the parties, and just one party can prevent the listing of additional
substances to the conventions. As it turned out, some countries opposing new
listings of toxic substances did not offer a justification in accordance with
the objectives of the conventions.

At COP 7 of the Stockholm Convention, which
targets persistent organic pollutants (POPs) for global elimination,India opposed the addition of the pesticide pentachlorophenol
(PCP) to the convention’ list and questioned the recommendation for listing made
by the POPs Review Committee (POPRC),
the scientific body of the convention. By the end of the second week after
talks had been exhausted, COP 7 resorted to a vote, the first time in the
convention’s history, and decided to list PCP and its salts and esters to Annex
A of the convention with a time-limited exemption for utility poles and
crossarms.

PCP is a ubiquitous global contaminant that
has been found in breast milk, blood, amniotic fluid, and other human tissues
throughout the world, including Indigenous peoples of the Arctic. It is associated with increased risk of certain
cancers such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

COP 7 of the Stockholm Convention also agreed
to list the industrial chemicals
hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) to Annex A without exemptions, and polychlorinated
naphtalenes (PCNs) to Annex A with a time-limited exemption for use as
intermediates in the production of polyfluorinated naphtalenes, including
octafluoronaphtalene.

COP 7 of the Rotterdam Convention failed to reach an
agreement to apply international trade regulations to dangerous pesticides

Of the pesticides proposed for listing at
COP 7 only methamidophos was added in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention,
which regulates trade of hazardous chemicals on the principle of Prior Informed
Consent

In addition, parties deliberated on the listing
of the formulation fenthion ultra-low volume (ULV) at or above 640 g active
ingredient/L as a Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation (SHPF), the
herbicide paraquat dichloride 276 g/L as SHPF, and the active ingredient trichlorfon.

Sudan
opposed the listing of fenthion

Sudan’s government representative said that
adding fenthion to the Rotterdam Convention could decrease production of the
chemical and increase market prices. Fenthion is used in Sudan to kill
migratory birds that eat crops, such as millet and sorghum.

Other Sahel countries in the region having
the same problem are opting for gentler solutions. Mr.
Moussa Abderaman Abdoulaye, Chad’s delegate to the Rotterdam Convention said: “Fenthion
was used in Chad until 2011 to combat birds that eat cereals from farms.
However, the human health and environmental costs were enormous. Chad banned
it, began raising awareness on the toxicity of fenthion and promoting the use
of nets to trap birds that are also edible. The use of the nets do not threaten
the bird population, it provides food to rural communities, and a source of
protein and income.”

The proposal to add fenthion in Annex III
to the Rotterdam Convention was initially proposed by the Republic of Chad and later
reviewed and recommended for listing by the Chemical Review Committee (CRC)
of the Convention.

For the second time, paraquat dichloride
276 g/L was blocked
from being listed as a SHPF to the Rotterdam Convention. The countries opposing the listing were India,
Guatemala, Indonesia and Paraguay.

Baskut Tuncak, the UN Special
Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances said “it is legally and
morally unjustifiable for countries to continue to obstruct the listing of
asbestos and paraquat under the Rotterdam Convention.”

Two years earlier, at COP 6
in 2013 India and Guatemala, both manufacturers of paraquat formulations, blocked
this substance from being added to the convention. Guatemala expressed at COP 6
that listing paraquat would affect its exports in the region because countries could
take action and stop imports of this toxic chemical.

Burkina
Faso initially proposed that paraquat dichloride as SHPF be added to the
Rotterdam Convention because of the harm to human health and the environment
reported in the country. The CRC reviewed the proposal and recommended it for listing to
the COP.

The active ingredient Trichlorfon
was not added to the Rotterdam Convention

The
listing of the pesticide trichorfon to the Rotterdam Convention was blocked by
India.

Also,
the industrial chemical chrysotile asbestos, used to make rooftops in many
developing countries, for the 5th time was blocked from being listed
to the Rotterdam Convention. Belarus, Cuba, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Pakistan, Russia, and Zimbabwe opposed the listing.

The
effectiveness of the Rotterdam Convention is at stake

Parties
and observers attending the COPs questioned the effectiveness of the Rotterdam
Convention, whose mission has been undermined by seemingly commercial interests.

Malaysia’s
Ms. Fatimah Md. Anwar from the Pesticides Control Division of the Dept. of
Agriculture said “We question the effectiveness of the convention if
considerations of trade, availability of pesticides and market pricing
supersedes the importance of information sharing.”

Also, the undue pressure from the industry
was reported by Ecuador who asked that the meeting report reflect its
declaration that it has been approached by private sector representatives
seeking to persuade countries to oppose listing (re paraquat dichloride), which
was “unacceptable.”

Hopes
for listing additional hazardous chemicals

On the promising side, COP 7 of the
Rotterdam Convention decided to establish an inter-sessional
working group to review the cases where consensus on the listing of chemicals
was not achieved and to come up with a proposal to improve the effectiveness of
the convention. COP 8 in 2017 will decide on the options developed by the inter-sessional
working group.

Parties requested technical assistance and
support to identify alternatives to HHPs. Dr. Meriel Watts from Pesticide
Action Network said “This offers an opportunity for countries to implement
agroecological approaches and promote sustainable agriculture and rural
development.”

Overall the 2015 Triple COPs adopted over 50 decisions
and agreed to convene the next round of chemicals and waste COPs, with a high
level segment, in 2017.